CGJAhttp://cgja.org
en[Marin County] Split San Rafael council approves flavored tobacco banhttp://cgja.org/news/marin-county-split-san-rafael-council-approves-flavored-tobacco-ban-0
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p itemprop="name">Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.</p>
<p>Tobacco retailers in San Rafael have 18 months to comply with a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco approved this week by a divided City Council.</p>
<p>The 3-2 decision came on the fourth motion proposed Monday after council members heard more than three hours of public comment and debate and then voted down three variations of the ban. It came down to balancing the rights of adults with the public health crisis of youth tobacco use.</p>
<p>Councilman John Gamblin said a decision on a prohibition is better left in the hands of state and federal legislators and voted no on the first three motions Monday. In the spirit of compromise, Gamblin proposed an option that allowed an 18-month grace period for retailers to comply, assuming that Senate Bill 38, a proposed state ban on certain flavored products, would take effect before then.</p>
<p>Council members Andrew McCullough and Kate Colin were in favor of an exemption for adult-only stores and cast dissenting votes.</p>
<p>“I would support a ban, but only if an exemption came with it,” said McCullough, explaining that he thinks it’s “important to protect the retailers who are playing by the rules” by not selling to minors.</p>
<p>Mayor Gary Phillips and Councilwoman Maribeth Bushey were unwavering and passionately in favor of a ban.</p>
<p>“The experts … are here telling us this one thing: this particular type of product is so dangerous that we need to completely outlaw it,” Bushey said.</p>
<p>Ted Turina, who owns VIP Vape in downtown San Rafael, was stunned with the decision and said he’s going to need to take time to figure out how to adjust.</p>
<p>“That was a twist I don’t think anybody thought was going to happen,” he said.</p>
<p>The debate comes as the state is pushing for flavored tobacco bans.&nbsp;Additionally, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury recently released a report calling on Marin educators and health officials to crack down on what they call an epidemic. Rising incidence of teen vaping is fueling the call to action.</p>
<p>So far, the county of Marin, Larkspur, Sausalito, San Anselmo and Corte Madera have approved similar bans of flavored tobacco. The ban applies to tobacco products and vaporizer pods or cartridges that have added flavors, including menthol. Fairfax and Novato have a ban, but exempt menthol products.</p>
<p>During the deliberation, protesters held signs that read “Prohibition has never worked” and “Help us legally quit smoking.”</p>
<p>The council chambers were divided with anti-tobacco group members and health officials on one side and ban opponents on the other. Vape retailers and users said flavored vaping products help adults quit smoking. Opponents of the ban said since switching to vape they have improved blood circulation and lung health. They provided research from the Royal College of Physicians that recommends vape products as an effective tobacco cessation tool.</p>
<p>Before the vote, Dr. Matt Willis, Marin County public health officer, laid out the rationale for the ban, including statistics from the California Healthy Kids Survey that show youth vaping has increased from one in 10 to one in three students.</p>
<p>Willis said that in order to keep the products from getting to kids a comprehensive ban is needed and any exemption would undermine the work of the county. He also noted e-cigarettes are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a means of quitting smoking, even though they are often touted as a safe smoking substitute.</p>
<p>“The fact is, is that flavoring is a contributor to new people choosing to use tobacco and becoming addicted and we can address that through policy,” Willis said.</p>
<p>As of December, there were 54 tobacco retail licenses issued in San Rafael, said Ethan Guy, principal analyst for the city’s community development department. These including liquor stores, pharmacies, grocery stores and smoke shops.</p>
<p>Hoping for an exemption, Turina said his shop is 18 and older to enter. Customers have to be 21 or older to purchase vape products. They have an ID reader and employees are trained to spot fakes. Additionally, the store doesn’t carry brands that appear to market to youth, he said.</p>
<p>In his presentation, Guy said if a ban was adopted it’s estimated that the city would lose about $25,000 in sales tax revenue with an exemption, and up to $100,000 with a full ban.</p>
<p>A statewide ban would result in a $237 million loss in excise taxes and $54.5 million in sales taxes, according to an analysis by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.</p>
<p>Dr. Jason Nau, a physician at Kaiser Permanente San Rafael and chairman of the San Francisco Marin Medical Society’s Marin Committee, said an exemption is not acceptable.</p>
<p>‘We’re in the middle of a vaping epidemic,” he said. “We need to consider the loss of tax revenue on the sale of tobacco products as a public health victory. The long term societal costs are much greater to our children.”</p>
<p>The ordinance will be on the consent calendar at the next meeting for a second reading. Under the ordinance, pharmacies would be prohibited from selling all tobacco products. The ban takes effect Jan. 1, 2021.</p>
<p>May 21, 2019</p>
<p>Marin Independent Journal</p>
<p>By Adrian Rodriguez</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-county field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">County:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/counties/marin">Marin</a></div></div></div>Sat, 25 May 2019 08:11:50 +0000rczurek968 at http://cgja.orghttp://cgja.org/news/marin-county-split-san-rafael-council-approves-flavored-tobacco-ban-0#comments[Marin County] Split San Rafael council approves flavored tobacco banhttp://cgja.org/news/marin-county-split-san-rafael-council-approves-flavored-tobacco-ban
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p itemprop="name">Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.</p>
<p>Tobacco retailers in San Rafael have 18 months to comply with a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco approved this week by a divided City Council.</p>
<p>The 3-2 decision came on the fourth motion proposed Monday after council members heard more than three hours of public comment and debate and then voted down three variations of the ban. It came down to balancing the rights of adults with the public health crisis of youth tobacco use.</p>
<p>Councilman John Gamblin said a decision on a prohibition is better left in the hands of state and federal legislators and voted no on the first three motions Monday. In the spirit of compromise, Gamblin proposed an option that allowed an 18-month grace period for retailers to comply, assuming that Senate Bill 38, a proposed state ban on certain flavored products, would take effect before then.</p>
<p>Council members Andrew McCullough and Kate Colin were in favor of an exemption for adult-only stores and cast dissenting votes.</p>
<p>“I would support a ban, but only if an exemption came with it,” said McCullough, explaining that he thinks it’s “important to protect the retailers who are playing by the rules” by not selling to minors.</p>
<p>Mayor Gary Phillips and Councilwoman Maribeth Bushey were unwavering and passionately in favor of a ban.</p>
<p>“The experts … are here telling us this one thing: this particular type of product is so dangerous that we need to completely outlaw it,” Bushey said.</p>
<p>Ted Turina, who owns VIP Vape in downtown San Rafael, was stunned with the decision and said he’s going to need to take time to figure out how to adjust.</p>
<p>“That was a twist I don’t think anybody thought was going to happen,” he said.</p>
<p>The debate comes as the state is pushing for flavored tobacco bans.&nbsp;Additionally, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury recently released a report calling on Marin educators and health officials to crack down on what they call an epidemic. Rising incidence of teen vaping is fueling the call to action.</p>
<p>So far, the county of Marin, Larkspur, Sausalito, San Anselmo and Corte Madera have approved similar bans of flavored tobacco. The ban applies to tobacco products and vaporizer pods or cartridges that have added flavors, including menthol. Fairfax and Novato have a ban, but exempt menthol products.</p>
<p>During the deliberation, protesters held signs that read “Prohibition has never worked” and “Help us legally quit smoking.”</p>
<p>The council chambers were divided with anti-tobacco group members and health officials on one side and ban opponents on the other. Vape retailers and users said flavored vaping products help adults quit smoking. Opponents of the ban said since switching to vape they have improved blood circulation and lung health. They provided research from the Royal College of Physicians that recommends vape products as an effective tobacco cessation tool.</p>
<p>Before the vote, Dr. Matt Willis, Marin County public health officer, laid out the rationale for the ban, including statistics from the California Healthy Kids Survey that show youth vaping has increased from one in 10 to one in three students.</p>
<p>Willis said that in order to keep the products from getting to kids a comprehensive ban is needed and any exemption would undermine the work of the county. He also noted e-cigarettes are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a means of quitting smoking, even though they are often touted as a safe smoking substitute.</p>
<p>“The fact is, is that flavoring is a contributor to new people choosing to use tobacco and becoming addicted and we can address that through policy,” Willis said.</p>
<p>As of December, there were 54 tobacco retail licenses issued in San Rafael, said Ethan Guy, principal analyst for the city’s community development department. These including liquor stores, pharmacies, grocery stores and smoke shops.</p>
<p>Hoping for an exemption, Turina said his shop is 18 and older to enter. Customers have to be 21 or older to purchase vape products. They have an ID reader and employees are trained to spot fakes. Additionally, the store doesn’t carry brands that appear to market to youth, he said.</p>
<p>In his presentation, Guy said if a ban was adopted it’s estimated that the city would lose about $25,000 in sales tax revenue with an exemption, and up to $100,000 with a full ban.</p>
<p>A statewide ban would result in a $237 million loss in excise taxes and $54.5 million in sales taxes, according to an analysis by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.</p>
<p>Dr. Jason Nau, a physician at Kaiser Permanente San Rafael and chairman of the San Francisco Marin Medical Society’s Marin Committee, said an exemption is not acceptable.</p>
<p>‘We’re in the middle of a vaping epidemic,” he said. “We need to consider the loss of tax revenue on the sale of tobacco products as a public health victory. The long term societal costs are much greater to our children.”</p>
<p>The ordinance will be on the consent calendar at the next meeting for a second reading. Under the ordinance, pharmacies would be prohibited from selling all tobacco products. The ban takes effect Jan. 1, 2021.</p>
<p>May 21, 2019</p>
<p>Marin Independent Journal</p>
<p>By Adrian Rodriguez</p>
</div></div></div>Sat, 25 May 2019 08:11:30 +0000rczurek967 at http://cgja.orghttp://cgja.org/news/marin-county-split-san-rafael-council-approves-flavored-tobacco-ban#comments[Kern County] Thousands not paying their red light ticketshttp://cgja.org/news/kern-county-thousands-not-paying-their-red-light-tickets
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p itemprop="name">Blog note: this article references a grand jury recommendation.</p>
<p>Caught in the act. Traffic cameras catch drivers running red lights, but thousands of people in Bakersfield don't actually pay their tickets.</p>
<p>According to the Bakersfield Police Department in 2018, there were 14,344 red light tickets issued. Only 5,488 people actually paid the ticket, that's 8,856 unpaid tickets for running a red light.</p>
<p>"If you're found guilty of a red light violation, you have to pay the fee," BPD Sgt. Nathan Mcauley said.</p>
<p>McCauley says the main reason people don't pay is that they simply don't want to, and if you decide not to pay you could be driving illegally.</p>
<p>"I guess it's optional if you're willing to face the consequences as well as having a suspended license, or not being able to register your car, its a choice, it may not be a good one but it may be an expensive one because if you want a license again your fees and things might be increased," McCauley said.</p>
<p>BPD wants the community to know you can go to traffic court to be put on a payment plan, even get a reduction in your ticket.</p>
<p>It's also important to note a grand jury report is hoping to add more red light cameras.</p>
<p>May 21, 2019</p>
<p>Bakersfield Now Eyewitness News</p>
<p>By Lexi Wilson</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-county field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">County:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/counties/kern">Kern</a></div></div></div>Sat, 25 May 2019 08:07:57 +0000rczurek966 at http://cgja.orghttp://cgja.org/news/kern-county-thousands-not-paying-their-red-light-tickets#comments[Tuolumne County] Letter to the editor: Community Economic Development – What next?http://cgja.org/news/tuolumne-county-letter-editor-community-economic-development-%E2%80%93-what-next
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p itemprop="name">Blog note: The Tuolumne County Grand Jury focus on the TCEDA has received the most media attention in the state over the past year than any other grand jury report.</p>
<p>Now that both the 2018 and 2019 Grand Jury investigations have brought the 10-year TCEDA saga to a final conclusion, what next? What can be done now that the slate has been wiped clean but there is still a need for an advocate to help grow and maintain our local economy for the next generation of entrepreneurs and business owners?</p>
<p>Our county leaders’ plan is to essentially wash, rinse and recycle that same old approach that got us stuck into this economic cul-de-sac in the first place. We don’t need more government and more spending without clear measurable objectives. I recommend they not create a new economic development department for the next 12 months. Turns out it didn’t matter much the past 10 years.</p>
<p>The City of Sonora has a better plan. Hire an outside expert to gather input from local business owners and other stakeholders then let them decide how to implement the recommendations. No need for another permanent government employee collecting $100K-plus in salary and retirement benefits per year.</p>
<p>Next, let’s elect new supervisors in 2020 who will make sound economic development decisions that would include reducing governmental spending, executive hiring and costly regulations and fees. We need supervisors who will conduct quantifiable Return- on-Investment (ROI) analysis vs. the good-old-boy “subjective analysis” as highlighted by Supervisor Gray’s response to the Grand Jury report.</p>
<p>Lastly, more governmental transparency is still needed. The Grand Jury has noted that this has not been totally settled. They looked at the TCEDA’s nonprofit arm, the Economic Prosperity Council of Tuolumne County, and determined “the public should be able to see the findings from a review of potential conflicts of interest that was conducted by the County Counsel’s Office.” The results are considered attorney-client privilege. Sounds very similar to their response to my Public Records Act lawsuit which initially discovered the government’s lack of transparency. According to the report “the public has a right to evaluate whether any conflicts existed.” It is unfortunate that the jury will not pursue the matter due to the potential legal costs to taxpayers. Maybe this needs fresh new eyes from a higher authority.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that whatever changes are made in the coming months by our leaders, they will have to regain trust from the public. A good start would be new leadership. What happens next is up to us. Follow the news — information is power — shop locally, get involved and vote.</p>
<p>May 22, 2019</p>
<p>The Union Democrat</p>
<p>From Ken Perkins, Sonora</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-county field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">County:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/counties/tuolumne">Tuolumne</a></div></div></div>Sat, 25 May 2019 08:06:36 +0000rczurek965 at http://cgja.orghttp://cgja.org/news/tuolumne-county-letter-editor-community-economic-development-%E2%80%93-what-next#comments[San Diego County] La Mesa residents push for police oversight board at community forumhttp://cgja.org/news/san-diego-county-la-mesa-residents-push-police-oversight-board-community-forum
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p itemprop="name">Blog note: this article references a 2016 grand jury report.</p>
<p>LA MESA&nbsp;—&nbsp; Several dozen La Mesa residents met Tuesday night to discuss the possibility of creating a community oversight board for the La Mesa Police Department.</p>
<p>The forum, put on by the civic engagement group La Mesa Conversations and held at the city’s Masonic Lodge, drew a crowd of about 75 residents and a handful of activists and community leaders from around the county, including the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties and the local branch of the NAACP.</p>
<p>“If you want effective policing, you need trust, you need accountability,” said Andrea St. Julian, a lawyer and member of Women Occupy San Diego who was one of four panelists. “The best way to get those two things are by having a citizens oversight board of some type.”</p>
<p>According to Janet Castaños, a board member of La Mesa Conversations, the idea of creating a police oversight commission or review board — like San Diego’s Community Review Board on Police Practices, or the county’s Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board — sprang up after a white La Mesa police officer was recorded twice throwing a black 17-year-old girl to the ground at Helix High School in January 2018.</p>
<p>“They completed an internal investigation and found no fault with the officer, that he followed proper policy,” Castaños said last week. “Well if that’s OK, then maybe there’s something wrong with the policy.”</p>
<p>Councilwoman Akilah Weber, who was elected to her first term last year, said she and other council members were disappointed earlier this year when the outside firm hired to investigate the Helix incident presented its findings.</p>
<p>A lawyer from that firm said he was not allowed to share specifics of how the investigation determined that the officer did not use excessive force, that his actions were not racially motivated and that he did not lose his temper during the incident.</p>
<p>After that meeting, Weber asked Police Chief Walt Vasquez to speak to the council about the department’s use-of-force policy, which he did last month.</p>
<p>Weber also asked city staff around that same time to study how smaller cities and communities have implemented community review boards, she said in an interview Tuesday night. She expects the council will receive the results of that report at one of its July meetings.</p>
<p>In an email Wednesday, Councilwoman Kristine Alessio said that until the City Council has time to study the staff report, it would be “hard to opine” whether La Mesa needs an oversight commission.</p>
<p>“I’m in favor of proposals that strengthen the relationship between police departments and the communities they serve,” Alessio wrote in an email. “But ... without seeing the report it’s hard for me to say what sort of proposal I’d be for or against.”</p>
<p>Alessio said putting the matter up for voters to decide “could be a valuable tool to determine community support for any proposals,” but that it isn’t “absolutely necessary.”</p>
<p>Councilman Bill Baber said he sees no need for an oversight board, but said an advisory panel might be an option.</p>
<p>“Our police officers have a dangerous job, I won’t vote for anything that makes their job more difficult,” Baber wrote in an email Wednesday. “However, if the Chief wants to convene a committee of citizens to give him advice on neighborhood issues, that’s probably helpful.”</p>
<p>Weber, who is also on the board of La Mesa Conversations, said Tuesday night that the council must listen to whether the community wants an oversight commission, but Tuesday’s forum had “an amazing turnout, and it definitely sounds like (an oversight board) is something the community is interested in.”</p>
<p>Mayor Mark Arapostathis and Vice Mayor Colin Parent did not immediately respond to emailed questions.</p>
<p>Panelist Jamal McCrae, a La Mesa resident and former San Diego County sheriff’s deputy, said he believes creating an oversight commission is important, “not to police the police, but to show the community that La Mesa P.D. will do everything in its power to be transparent, to restore faith in the police force.”</p>
<p>La Mesa resident Jack Shu, another of the panelists who was also a former law enforcement officer in his role as a state parks superintendent, said that society gives police officers “a tremendous amount of power” and “huge amounts of discretion.”</p>
<p>“And actually I like them to have that discretion, because most of the time our law enforcement folks use that discretion wisely and do the right thing,” Shu said.</p>
<p>But he believes law enforcement leaders have a tendency to protect that discretion, and protect the misdeeds of some officers, rather than be accountable. He said he believes an oversight commission or review board is the best way to hold police to account when they do make poor decisions.</p>
<p>The new push for community oversight of police revives recommendations put forward in 2016 by the San Diego County Grand Jury.</p>
<p>In the grand jury’s report on police oversight boards in the region, it recommended that La Mesa and six other cities — El Cajon, Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Chula Vista and Coronado — establish citizen review boards or commissions, or create regional review boards to serve more than one city.</p>
<p>According to the report, the grand jury had received complaints from citizens in several cities without oversight boards who “felt there was inadequate resolution of their grievances.” The report did not specify if any of those complaints came from La Mesa residents.</p>
<p>In their response to the grand jury report , La Mesa’s mayor and police chief said the city had no immediate plans to establish an independent citizen oversight commission.</p>
<p>“Citizen complaints against La Mesa Police Department personnel are taken seriously and reviewed at all levels, including the Chief of Police,” Arapostathis and Vasquez wrote in the letter dated July 26, 2016. “La Mesa does not have a history of complaints about Police behavior that have not been resolved through existing channels and procedures.”&nbsp;</p>
<p>May 22, 2019</p>
<p>The San Diego Union-Tribune</p>
<p>By Alex Riggins</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-county field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">County:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/counties/san-diego">San Diego</a></div></div></div>Sat, 25 May 2019 08:05:21 +0000rczurek964 at http://cgja.orghttp://cgja.org/news/san-diego-county-la-mesa-residents-push-police-oversight-board-community-forum#comments[San Diego County] San Diego Grand Jury Urges More School Safety Training, Resourceshttp://cgja.org/news/san-diego-county-san-diego-grand-jury-urges-more-school-safety-training-resources
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p itemprop="name">The jury recommends that the county to prioritizes funding for safety training, equipment and infrastructure improvements.</p>
<p itemprop="name">The San Diego grand jury recommended that the region’s school districts increase funding for more training and resources toward school safety.</p>
<p>In a report –“School Safety in San Diego County: How Prepared Are We for Another School Shooting?” — released on Tuesday, the panel recommended that all county school safety plans focus on active shooter situations, reports the Times of San Diego.</p>
<p>“Although the probability is low for a school shooting to occur, it is imperative that our schools be reasonably prepared for the possibility of such an event,” the report said.</p>
<p>It noted several school shootings that occurred in San Diego in recent years, including an attack in 2001 at Santee’s Santana High School which left two students dead and 13 people injured.</p>
<p>The report also examined how other schools prepared and responded to some of the more recent school shootings like&nbsp;Sandy Hook or Parkland.</p>
<p>Based on other districts’ safety plans and interviews with education officials, the grand jury found that San Diego County campuses have done well to prepare for active shooter situations, but noted that there is room for improvement.</p>
<p>For example, while some campuses have conducted drills related to intruders, they aren’t necessarily armed intruders. Or, natural disaster safety drills may be more common than drills for active shooter incidents.</p>
<p>Some of the recommendations given in the report include:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Prioritize funding for training, equipment and infrastructure improvements</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Include substitute teachers and all other adult campus workers in active shooter training</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Conduct “vulnerability studies” at all school sites that account each campus’ unique layout</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Collaborate with school officials, law enforcement, first responders and mental health practitioners</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The grand jury urges these recommendations to be incorporated by March 1, 2020 in the following school districts:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Bonsall Union Elementary School District</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Cajon Valley Union School District</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Carlsbad Unified School District</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Chula Vista Elementary School District</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Escondido Union School District</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Rancho Santa Fe Elementary School District</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>San Dieguito Union High School District</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>San Marcos Unified School District</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>San Diego Unified School District</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>San Ysidro Elementary School District</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Sweetwater Union High School District.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>May 23, 2019</p>
<p>Campus Safety Magazine (national, based in Massachusetts)</p>
<p>By Katie Malafronte</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-county field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">County:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/counties/san-diego">San Diego</a></div></div></div>Sat, 25 May 2019 08:03:40 +0000rczurek963 at http://cgja.orghttp://cgja.org/news/san-diego-county-san-diego-grand-jury-urges-more-school-safety-training-resources#comments[San Luis Obispo County] SLO County Grand Jury releases report highlighting jail system, public healthhttp://cgja.org/news/san-luis-obispo-county-slo-county-grand-jury-releases-report-highlighting-jail-system-public
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p itemprop="name">The San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury released its annual report Thursday, highlighting issues that the jury believes should be addressed within the county.</p>
<p>The 2018-2019 Continuity Report reviews responses that were required as part of previously published Grand Jury Reports. Traditionally, it’s prepared by each year’s Grand Jury.</p>
<p>This year’s report involved six investigative reports from the 2017-2018 Grand Jury, which required responses from various agencies.</p>
<p>The 2018-2019 Grand Jury reviewed those responses and then prepared the report, which examines the county’s Psychiatric Health Facility, County Behavioral Health Services, San Luis Obispo County Detention Facilities, overall public health, potential health risks from the Dunes, and recidivism rates, which is the rate of prisoner re-entry into the jail system.</p>
<p>In its report on the Psychiatric Health Facility, the previous Grand Jury found it to “be a 16-bed antiquated facility that does not meet the crisis needs of the county’s mentally ill population and committed staff members.”</p>
<p>The report says the county’s Health Agency responded to six findings and agreed with one, partially disagreed with four findings, and disagreed with one.</p>
<p>In the report on San Luis Obispo County Detention facilities, the Grand Jury had specifically focused on housing, food, and transportation of prisoners. The Grand Jury says studies were also conducted on the medical and mental health treatment of inmates.</p>
<p>It recommended that the sheriff’s office construct a psychiatric hospital on the jail campus or somewhere else in the County. The Sheriff’s Office responded saying the recommendation hasn’t been implemented yet but will be in the future with its Behavioral Health Unit.</p>
<p>In its public health investigation, the Grand Jury recommended establishing a Vector Control program, which would control the mosquito population. That recommendation has since been partially implemented. Public Health says it doesn’t have enough funding for mosquito abatement, but that it has begun mosquito surveillance.</p>
<p>The report also included open recommendations from previous grand juries. One recommendation was to repurpose vacant buildings within the County Jail’s honor farm as a residential detox service.</p>
<p>The Grand Jury noted at the end of the report that it recognizes and appreciates county leaders for showing dedication to improving county services.</p>
<p>The Grand Jury does not have any enforcement powers. Its mission is to shed light on various issues.</p>
<p>May 23, 2019</p>
<p>KSBY San Luis Obispo News</p>
<p>By Lindsay Zuchelli</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-county field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">County:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/counties/san-luis-obispo">San Luis Obispo</a></div></div></div>Sat, 25 May 2019 08:01:45 +0000rczurek962 at http://cgja.orghttp://cgja.org/news/san-luis-obispo-county-slo-county-grand-jury-releases-report-highlighting-jail-system-public#commentsHow you can serve on Humboldt County’s Civil Grand Juryhttp://cgja.org/news/how-you-can-serve-humboldt-county%E2%80%99s-civil-grand-jury
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p itemprop="name">In a recent article on the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury, we focused on the grand jury’s investigative powers, and how our county leadership must be held accountable for their actions or lack of action. Serious consequences of ignoring civil grand jury recommendations were highlighted as leading to both the U. S. Justice Department and the Attorney General of California taking legal action against the county.<br />
<br />
Today’s article provides an introduction to the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury, including membership and administrative processes.<br />
<br />
Your civil grand jury is composed of 19 citizen volunteers who give their time to serve you, the residents of our county. Civil grand jurors come from all walks of life and work as one voice investigating county and city governments as well as districts to assure that their actions are effective, efficient, and accountable to you.<br />
<br />
Civil grand jury service is open to all county residents, 18 and older, who are U.S. citizens and have not been convicted of a felony. Each year during the month of May, the Humboldt County Superior Court reviews applications for membership on the civil grand jury. Interviews are normally held, and acceptable candidate names are then placed in a “hat” before drawing out 19 names. A list of alternates is then created from all remaining applicants. A new civil grand jury is seated during July of each year.<br />
<br />
Civil grand jurors are reimbursed for their services. A stipend of $20 is paid for each seven hours of participation during the weekly meetings. Mileage is paid at the rate of approximately 58 cents per mile. Jurors are expected to commit a minimum of 20 hours a week. As investigations begin, your commitment will significantly increase.<br />
<br />
A two-day training class introducing you to grand jury law, local governments, the investigation process, and how to interview and write reports is provided once you have been selected for membership. This training is given by the California Grand Jurors’ Association.<br />
<br />
Once training is complete, it is time to begin discussions about what the civil grand jury may decide to investigate. First and foremost on the list is a review of all citizens’ complaints. The complaint process and form is available on the county’s website. The civil grand jury is required to read and consider every citizen complaint received. It is not required to act on or investigate all complaints.<br />
<br />
When the full civil grand jury meets, it is referred to as plenary. A supermajority of at least 12 jurors is required to take any action during plenary. As an independent entity, the civil grand jury sets it's own meeting schedule and approach to performing investigations. During recent years, the civil grand jury has elected to meet for three hours on Tuesday and Wednesday of each week. In addition, recent juries have formed sub-committees to help facilitate investigations.<br />
<br />
The benefits of being a member of the civil grand jury are many. It is a great opportunity to serve and learn more about your community. You will meet people with varying backgrounds, experiences and points of view. You will effect change within both county and city governments and the many service districts throughout the county. You won’t find Perry Mason in the deliberations. No criminal will be found guilty, but you will learn things about government that may startle and amaze. You will see the many good things our government provides its citizens and yet you may end up scratching your head over the ways in which policy could be improved and revenues better spent. A bonus is that you will be excused from serving trial jury duty for two years.<br />
<br />
Does this sound like something you may be interested in pursuing? The process is simple, only requiring a two-page application. That application is available on the county website (https://humboldtgov.org/518/Civil-Grand-Jury-Forms), or by visiting the Civil Grand Jury Office at the county courthouse. Applications for the civil grand jury are accepted all year.<br />
<br />
Wayne Ventuleth<br />
<br />
Wayne Ventuleth writes on behalf of the Humboldt County Grand Jurors’ Association. This monthly column about the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury is provided by the Humboldt County Chapter of the California Grand Jurors’ Association (HCC-CGJA). For information on the Jurors’ Association email us: hcccgja@gmail.com. Correction to previous column: The HCC-CGJA used the term “jail inspections” when referring to state law requirements. The correct terminology is “prison inspections.”<br />
<br />
Eureka Time-Standard<br />
May 5, 2019</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-county field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">County:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/counties/humboldt">Humboldt</a></div></div></div>Fri, 24 May 2019 05:24:25 +0000rczurek961 at http://cgja.orghttp://cgja.org/news/how-you-can-serve-humboldt-county%E2%80%99s-civil-grand-jury#comments[Santa Barbara County] Grand Jury Finds Cuyama Schools Business Practices Need Updatinghttp://cgja.org/news/santa-barbara-county-grand-jury-finds-cuyama-schools-business-practices-need-updating
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p itemprop="name">The 2018-19 Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury (Jury) received a request for investigation of the Cuyama Joint Unified School District, specifically the District Business Office (DBO) operations.&nbsp; The request for investigation alleged that inefficiencies in the office operations have led to the disappearance of District funds, late payment of bills, payroll errors, and failure to produce teacher contracts.&nbsp; Additional concerns were that employees lacked necessary training and oversight.&nbsp; There is an ongoing investigation relating to the missing funds by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office.</p>
<p>The Jury found that past Boards of Trustees failed to provide proper oversight by not keeping Board policies and job descriptions current.&nbsp; The Jury questioned the frequency of turnover in the Superintendent position.</p>
<p>During the investigation the Jury identified other concerns related to the operation and inefficiencies within the DBO, such as out-of-date job descriptions, disparate and unrelated duties assigned to the Chief Business Officer, payroll errors, and recurring financial audit findings. The Superintendent, hired July 1, 2018, has begun to address these issues.</p>
<p>The entire report, “Cuyama Joint Unified School District,” can be found on the Grand Jury’s website at www.sbcgj.org.&nbsp;</p>
<p>May 20, 2019</p>
<p>Santa Barbara Edhat</p>
<p>By Santa Barbara County Grand Jury</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-county field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">County:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/counties/santa-barbara">Santa Barbara</a></div></div></div>Fri, 24 May 2019 05:23:08 +0000rczurek960 at http://cgja.orghttp://cgja.org/news/santa-barbara-county-grand-jury-finds-cuyama-schools-business-practices-need-updating#comments[Marin County] Marin civil grand jury urges vaping crackdownhttp://cgja.org/news/marin-county-marin-civil-grand-jury-urges-vaping-crackdown
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p itemprop="name">With youth vaping on the rise, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury recommends in a new report that health officials and educators increase countywide initiatives to prevent the use of electronic cigarettes.</p>
<p>“Marin County is in the midst of a health crisis concerning its youth — vaping,” the grand jury says in the report, “Vaping: An Under-the-Radar Epidemic.”</p>
<p>“Vaping among Marin County seventh, ninth, and 11th graders has more than doubled in the past two years, with 47% of 11th graders admitting to having vaped,” the report states. “As bad as these numbers are, they may actually be higher, as teens notoriously under-report on these types of surveys.”</p>
<p>To combat the vaping epidemic, the report suggests a four-pronged approach that includes limiting the availability of flavored tobacco; educating students, teachers and parents; enforcing flavored tobacco sales bans; and supporting students who already have an addiction to nicotine.</p>
<p>“The grand jury is highlighting an area that I totally agree with — we need to do more,” said Mary Jane Burke, Marin County superintendent of schools, who called it “not just a school issue, it’s a community issue.”</p>
<p>“It will be a collaborative effort countywide that I believe will make the difference,” she said.</p>
<p>Dr. Matt Willis, Marin County public health officer, said the health department and the county Office of Education have teamed up to educate children and parents. Willis said with the grand jury’s recommendation he plans to double down.</p>
<p>“The real answer is a combination of education and policy changes,” he said. “Raising awareness of the issue and sending a clear message that vaping is harmful, especially for young people.”</p>
<p>E-cigarettes, also known as vapes, are battery-operated devices that heat up liquid nicotine to generate an aerosol that users inhale.</p>
<p>Youth vaping has been a growing issue over the past couple of years with the advent of sleek vaporizer devices that resemble computer flash drives. These devices have become even more popular due to the fruity and candy-flavored pods filled with nicotine. Marin middle and high school students are reportedly vaping in class, in school bathrooms, locker rooms, in their cars during lunch breaks and near campus.</p>
<p>Citing a 2018 survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the grand jury report says 4.9 million children across the country were using e-cigarettes.</p>
<p>“Tobacco use had been declining in recent years,” the report says. “That trend has been reversed with the increased use of vaping products.”</p>
<p>Bob Curry, head of the county’s tobacco-related disease control program, agreed with the grand jury. He&nbsp;said that with Altria, the parent group of Philip Morris, investing almost $13 billion in Juul comes worry about a new generation of youth who will be lured to vaporizers and become addicted to nicotine.</p>
<p>Although some argue that vaping can be a cessation tool, Jasmine Gerraty, a youth prevention and intern coordinator for the Smoke-Free Marin Coalition, said it seems that the devices have become more of a gateway to smoking.</p>
<p>“We believe that these products have negatively introduced nicotine to a population of users who were not currently using these products before,” she said.</p>
<p>There has been a push to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products across the state.</p>
<p>So far, the county of Marin, Larkspur, Fairfax, Sausalito, San Anselmo and Corte Madera have approved similar bans of flavored tobacco. Bans in Fairfax and Novato do not apply to menthol-flavored products. The grand jury calls for the remaining cities and towns to adopt the flavor ban, and requests that Fairfax and Novato amend their bans to add menthol.</p>
<p>With the spotlight on Juul, the company in 2018 launched a campaign to combat youth usage, including suspending store sales of select flavored pods, and increases online sale controls, among other actions.</p>
<p>On its website, the company says, “JUUL Labs is committed to improving the lives of the world’s one billion adult smokers by providing a true alternative to combustible cigarettes. We do not want youth using our product. It is antithetical to our mission.”</p>
<p>May 20, 2019</p>
<p>Marin Independent Journal</p>
<p>By Adrian Rodriguez</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-county field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">County:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/counties/marin">Marin</a></div></div></div>Fri, 24 May 2019 05:21:18 +0000rczurek959 at http://cgja.orghttp://cgja.org/news/marin-county-marin-civil-grand-jury-urges-vaping-crackdown#comments